MOVING AHEAD WITH A JANUARY 6 SELECT COMMITTEE PROBE

DEMOCRATS TAKE THE HIGH ROAD AND

DO WHAT NEEDS DOING

                                                

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) has moved ahead with plans for a select committee that will investigate the January 6 insurrection at the U.S.

Capitol. Pelosi named eight committee members and designated Mississippi Congressman Bennie Thompson the chair. She  took the action following a June 30 House vote, mainly along party lines, favoring establishment of such a panel. That, in

turn, followed Senate rejection of a bipartisan, 9/11-style commission that would have investigated the events of January 6. Five people died as a result of the riot, including a police officer.  The dangerousness and brutality of the insurrectionists become more evident with each Justice Department release of new January 6 video.

Despite our preference for a bipartisan commission, we say Democrats have taken the only reasonable course Republicans left to them. It was a step they had no choice but to take. Congress had to fulfil its obligation to investigate what happened and decide who’s ultimately responsible.

A fierce urgency demands that  Congress find out who bears responsibility for the January 6 insurrection. In a democracy, not moving forward with an investigation of a matter like this would have been a dereliction of duty.

After Senate Republicans nixed the bipartisan commission option, only the select committee approach remained.  Republicans can complain all they want about the “partisan” nature of a select committee inquiry, but they could have prevented this circumstance. They declined the bipartisan commission under pressure from former President 

Donald Trump, who wants  nothing that might pin the blame on the person likely most responsible -- him. Republican fidelity to Trump’s wishes eviscerates the party’s viability as a defender of democracy and the nation’s most cherished ideals.       

 

The Urgency

Anyone who looks at the video or reads the published accounts of January 6 can only conclude that what occurred was an insurrection in the classic sense of the term – an effort at overthrowing the democratically expressed will of the people. We contend those who won’t recognize the events of January 6 as such now stand as opponents of democracy and are at war with the United States. A functioning democracy seeks out and holds accountable people who did what the insurrectionists did.

Fidelity to core American values requires that both

the general public and elected officials pursue full accountability for those who orchestrated and participated in what happened.  The public should, through social media, blogging, letters to the editor, and every other legal means, promote the need for that full accountability.

Meanwhile, elected officials owe a duty because of an oath they must uphold. That oath obligates them to protect and defend the United States Constitution. Those who won’t do that should resign their offices.

No one should believe the forces unleashed that day will just disappear. Trials of some of the 500 people already charged may tell us something

about the continuing threat posed by the right wing, white supremacist groups believed at the center of the January 6 riot. Trials, however, with their focus on the guilt or innocence of individuals, can never reveal the whole story of something like January 6.  That limitation makes the work of the select committee essential. It must find out who bears responsibility and let the nation know. Then, the country and its government can take steps that would prevent a repeat.

 

Committee Membership

Pelosi’s selection of Republican Representative Liz Chaney of Wyoming generated the most attention

among the members named. Republicans kicked Cheney out of her leadership role in their caucus because she voted in favor of Trump’s impeachment. She was one of two Republicans who backed a select committee

investigation (Adam Kinzinger of Illinois was the other). Chaney’s been adamant that Congress should get to the bottom of the January 6 incident.

In addition to Chairman Thompson, Pelosi put three Californians, Zoe Lofgren, Adam Schiff, and Pete Aguilar on the panel. Florida’s Stephanie Murphy, Jamie Raskin of Maryland, and Elaine Luria of Virginia round out the group.

That left the question of who, if anyone, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy would name.

McCarthy led the Republican complaints about “partisanship” in the process. His whining sounded hollow, given the fact he rejected the bipartisan commission, despite having gotten everything Republicans asked for in talks that led up to the vote on the measure that would have created a commission.

Thompson indicated the select committee won’t waste time getting to work. Its first hearings could come before the end of July. We’d welcome that. We believe those unwilling to find out what really happened now stand in opposition to democracy. The sooner Congress and the public can call out

exactly who falls into that category, the better. Are we or are we not a democracy? Congress bears the responsibility, starting with the work of this select committee, of providing us with an answer to that central question.

PICKING A VICE PRESIDENT: START WITH WHAT, NOT WHO.

PERHAPS JOE BIDEN’S MOST IMPORTANT DECISION

Former Vice President and presumed

Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has named his vice presidential selection steering committee. The group will help Biden with vetting potential running mates. Biden has already said he will choose a woman.

In due course, we’ll weigh in on prospective candidates. Pundits are floating about a dozen names. With the pick not

expected until late next month at the earliest, we’ll have time to comment on the pros and cons of possible choices. For now, we focus on what Biden should look for, not who. 

The unique circumstances in 2020 make this selection that much more important.  If

elected,  Biden would take office at age 78, older than any person ever upon first inauguration. He has hinted he wouldn’t seek a second term, putting his vice president in prime position to succeed him. Since the Second World War, six vice presidents have gone on to become president. In that same period, no major party has denied the presidential nomination to a vice president or former vice president who sought it. 

So, what qualities should Biden seek? We each made lists and factored them together, arriving at a four-part test we now present in no particular order. Each of us may assign more importance to one or another of these traits, but we really want someone with all of them.

Electability: You can’t Save Souls in an Empty Church

All three of us recognize the vice presidential candidate must help Biden

The Nightmare - The Art of Mark Bryan

win the election and end the Donald Trump nightmare. Woodson goes so far as to list the states – Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan – he thinks the vice presidential candidate must help Biden carry. Ideally, the person could help turn out core Democratic voters – blacks, browns, millennials, suburban women – perhaps putting in play states like Texas and Georgia.

The research on how much a vice presidential candidate can help presents

a mixed bag. A few studies say the second banana can make up to a three-percentage point difference. Others say it’s less, if any.

There’s disagreement about whether a vice presidential candidate can help carry a particular state, especially the candidate’s home state. John Kennedy – and most analysts of the 1960 election – believed Lyndon Johnson secured Texas for the Democrats that year. Some think Tim Kaine helped Hillary Clinton carry Virginia in 2016. On the other hand, Lloyd Bentsen couldn’t help Michal Dukakis win Texas in 1988. John Edwards didn’t claim North Carolina for John Kerry in 2004.

The Ready-to-Play Test: Can She Be President?

Henry states this as a matter of “experience in governance.”  For Rob, it’s “gravitas” – can we envision the vice president as commander-in-chief, confronting a foreign crisis (or a national pandemic)?  In the event of Biden’s death or incapacity, could the new or acting president rally the nation to a cause? 

John McCain paid a huge price for picking someone unprepared for national office in Sarah Palin. Though she gave McCain an initial boost in the polls, the more exposure Palin got, the worse the choice looked.   

Some of the women being suggested as possible running mates for Biden don’t offer the kind of resumes vice presidential candidates historically present.  They’ve only served as state legislators, been mayors, or briefly held

congressional seats. Only one or two have foreign policy experience. We know the paper resume doesn’t mean everything, but it has some importance.

Compatibility:  Are They on Same Page?

We had different ways of putting this point, but the more we thought about it, the easier reconciling our views became. All three of us think the president and vice president must  unify on policy, with the vice president strongly advocating the president’s agenda, even if she disagrees internally. Biden has said, based on his experience in flying right seat for Barack Obama for eight years, he wants someone who will dissent within the councils of the White House, but will go out and push for whatever final decision he makes. 

This presents more of a problem than might appear at first glance. Lyndon Johnson was miserable as vice president because of the way the Kennedys cut him out of a meaningful policymaking role. He was never an effective spokesman for the New Frontier. Former president Bill Clinton and James Patterson, in their bestselling novel The President is

Missing,  present a vice president with resentments and a separate agenda that, for a time, appeared to threaten the nation. Biden should pick a team player and treat her as such. 

Restorative Capacity: Putting the Country Back Together

Even if the coronavirus hadn’t ravaged the nation’s health and its economy, any Democrat elected in 2020 would face a monumental job in restoring the country's moral authority. Diminished respect for the

rule of law, broken foreign alliances, mistrust based on ethnicity and hyper partisanship represent just some of the intangibles a new administration will face. The pandemic won’t have gone away by January 2021. A new vice president may have a big role in helping with the remaining economic and public health consequences.

Woodson says he wants a vice presidential candidate who can “relate to a broad coalition of people.” The vice president will need that capacity in helping Biden restore America’s place

and standing in the world. She must help the president bring together a cross-section of America in support of the reclamation project the next administration must undertake.

Our criteria ask a lot of potential vice presidents, but we don’t think we ask too much. Biden, if he wins, will have a big job. The woman on his wing will have a lot to do. 

 

     

 

FAREWELL TO IOWA?

This week’s Iowa caucuses may well have been the last that lead off presidential voting,

at least in the Democratic Party. Loud objections to their first-contest-in-the-nation status have been out there for a long time. This year’s vote counting debacle may push them off the cliff. We see good reason for such a demise, but offer one caution we’ll get to shortly. History reminds of the need for being careful what you ask for sometimes.

We should point out some of the reasons Iowa acquired this position in the first place. New Hampshire has had the first primary spot since 1920. It even has a law mandating it

remain first.  Iowa, craving national political attention, designed its caucus so it’s not really a primary – no secret ballot, held at night over two or three hours, delegates awarded by a complicated alignment and realignment process. The momentum Jimmy Carter, for example, took

out of Iowa in 1976 encouraged candidates to practically move there in the year before the election. Barack  Obama, as we’ll get to, probably wouldn’t have been president without the gigantic push he got by winning Iowa in 2008. Over time, however, more people have realized how problematic Iowa’s first-in-the-process status is.

The Complaints

In this week’s caucus, entrance polls indicated  over 90 % of those participating were white. For a party that depends on black and brown votes, that’s a problem. Since Iowa often serves the function of winnowing the field and providing momentum for successful candidates, Iowa’s nearly all-white composition seems especially troubling. With similarly white New Hampshire next on the program, Iowa’s unrepresentativeness takes

Source: US Census Population Estimates 2018

on even greater significance. Several cycles ago, Democrats advanced more diverse Nevada and South Carolina on the schedule, but the out-sized influence of Iowa and New Hampshire remain. This year, for example, former Vice President Joe Biden’s poor showing in Iowa – and he may not do better in New Hampshire – leaves his candidacy totally dependent on winning South Carolina on February 29 and doing very well in Nevada a week earlier.

 

In the wake of Iowa this year we heard one national commentator suggest Democrats

start their primary campaign in Michigan. He argued  that state much better represents the kind of electorate a Democrat must attract in running for president. It has big cities with large minority group populations, suburbs, farming communities, and plenty of union members. The idea resonates with us, though we acknowledge we can only guess about how much different the results would have been, if at all.

A second complaint about Iowa has been the  structure of the caucus itself. Not everybody,

the argument goes, can take three hours on a week night for standing in lines and gathering in groups in high school and college gymnasiums. Without a doubt, the process limits participation. 

Finally, voters and political scientists have found the public nature of caucuses unnerving. Revealing one’s electoral choices before friends, neighbors, and strangers doesn’t comport with notions many Americans have about democracy. That characteristic may also depress participation.

We get the complaints about Iowa. They’re all valid. This week’s vote counting debacle may provide the impetus for moving Iowa to a later

spot on the calendar and perhaps entice the Iowa Democratic Party to scrap the caucus format for a primary.  All that is four or eight years down the road, depending on the outcome of this year’s general election and other factors. Right now, we doubt things will stay exactly the same.

The Obama Caveat

One bit of irony remains that no one should forget, especially given the complaints about Iowa’s demographics. The truth is that the boost Barack Obama got from Iowa’s nearly all-white electorate probably gave the United States its first president of color. In late 2007,

Obama & Clinton - the race for presidency 2008

Obama  trailed Hillary Clinton by 16 points in the polls in black-vote-rich South Carolina. Then Obama won a stunning victory in Iowa. He might not have pulled that off in a primary state (he lost to Clinton the next week in New Hampshire’s primary). Iowa’s caucus format puts a premium on field organization, something at which Obama’s campaign excelled. 

Because Obama won Iowa, black voters in South Carolina, previously skeptical of an African American’s chances of winning with white voters, changed their minds and rallied behind Obama.  He won the South Carolina primary by almost 30 points and never looked back. 

 

The demographic coin, therefore, has two sides. One wonders now if history might

repeat itself with former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Could his top-of-the-line showing in  Iowa (we won’t have the final results for another week) alleviate skepticism about the viability of an openly gay candidate who publicly expresses his affection for his husband? Time will tell but we can’t say it won’t happen.

Pete Bittgieg and Husband

Lots of reasons exist for getting rid of the Iowa caucuses as the first exercise in the presidential campaign process.  History, and maybe the present, counsel at least a measure of caution.